As part of the new policy, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek announced Labor would set aside 30 per cent of Australia's land for conservation by 2030. Currently, 22pc of the nation's land is protected, with plans in place that will take it close to 27pc.

Ms Plibersek said she would consult widely about how the last 3pc was achieved, including with the agriculture industry. However, agricultural land is not believed to be under consideration to make up the shortfall.

"It's just mischief to say that we will be locking up agricultural land - we want to protect the landscapes we need to, but also encourage farmers to enhance the biodiversity on their own properties," Ms Plibersek said.

But the ag sector has raised concerns the no new extinctions policy would eventually restrict agricultural land clearing. Ecologists often cite land clearing as one of the biggest threats to endangered species due to habitat destruction.

Wildlife and ecology professor at Deakin University, Euan Ritchie said the zero extinction policy were just "words on paper" unless Labor dived into the "highly contested, controversial and politically sensitive" issue of land clearing.

"It's basically untenable to achieve the zero extinction goal and not confront the elephant in the room that is land clearing," Prof Ritchie said.

The Environment Minister was asked if the federal government would look to reduce land clearing to achieve its policy of no new extinctions, either through consultation with the states or its own powers in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.

Ms Plibersek said although under national environmental law actions that could have a significant impact on threatened species requires approval, most of the land cleared in Australia fell under national laws because "done small piece by small piece".

"Habitat protection and land clearing are largely regulated by state and territory governments," she said.

Prof Ritchie said to suggest the federal government didn't have a key role in policy and enforcing the law to protect biodiversity through the EPBC Act was "nonsensical".

"To suggest land clearing is too small to be the federal government's problem is ridiculous," he said.

"They can't have it both ways, they can't launch this policy of no new extinctions while trying to absolve their responsibility of doing the hard work on land clearing."

Prof Ritchie stressed the issue should not be "agriculture versus the environment", as most farmers wanted to do the right thing by the environment and needed the right policies to guide them.

AgForce chief executive Michael Guerin said the industry supported the new environmental targets, but would judge the minister by her actions rather than her words.

"Blunt instruments like lock-up and leave it make no sense if you want stronger environmental outcomes, what makes sense is better land management," he said.

As the nation's biggest group of land managers, Mr Guerin said the ag sector had to be involved in designing the new environmental policies from the get go.

IN OTHER NEWS:

"We need to be at the table as an equal at the start of the [policy] conversation, we don't want it run behind closed doors, then shown a draft in the consultation phase when there is little chance to change it," he said.

National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar was relieved to hear the Environment Minister give her word farm land wouldn't be locked up to meet the 30pc target, and said land clearing was a "hyped up distraction".

"This can't just become a dumbed-down discussion where everyone says land clearing is the problem," Mr Mahar said.

"The State of the Environment Report shows us for every hectare of primary forest cleared between 2015 and 2019, there were 2.5 hectares of sustained forest regrowth."

Prof Ritiche said it often took decades to a century for native habitats to regrow to their former state.

"Hollow trees are a good example, dozens of animals rely on them, but they can take 100 years to form," he said.